4 ms·

Some people wanted a multi-polar world, well, this is what a multi-polar world looks like: the poles start competing, including arms races. "History may not re

Some people wanted a multi-polar world, well, this is what a multi-polar world looks like: the poles start competing, including arms races. "History may not repeat itself but it often rhymes." as they say.

krunck 9mo ago
Any world configuration that consists of large groupings of fear driven people(nations, etc) will includes nukes. That is the world we live in. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, makes no difference. The only thing that matters is that all people rise up and demand an end to nuclear weapons.
- ThrowawayR2 9mo ago
  The nuclear arms re-proliferation that comes along with a multi-polar world raises the risk of use of nuclear weapons considerably. Even in traditionally anti-nuclear Japan, some politicians are broaching the idea of acquiring nuclear arms. That very much makes a difference.
- epolanski 9mo ago
  To be honest the world is likely safer because of the nuclear deterrent. If Pakistan and India both didn't have nuclear weapons you can rest assured they would've long fought an endless stream of wars with tens and tens of millions. They hate each other.
weregiraffe 9mo ago
>Some people wanted a multi-polar world Specifically, the people who are not part of the American mono-pole.
- cco 9mo ago
  Oh? By and large the move to a multi-polar world so far and to be driven by the US.
wvoch235 9mo ago
going to need to spend a lot more money than currently to support that...
wnissen 9mo ago
Perhaps we didn't realize how much stability the "two powers" model generated. It caused inevitable arms races as the two powers vied to stay competitive, but there were only two. And the USSR was able to de-escalate on its own. If you have three powers, each of them wants the ability to eliminate not one, but both of the others. Could lead to not just incremental, but polynomial expansion of forces. And de-escalation involves multiple parties coordinating, not just one great power.

krunck 9mo ago

Any world configuration that consists of large groupings of fear driven people(nations, etc) will includes nukes. That is the world we live in. Unipolar, bipolar, multipolar, makes no difference. The only thing that matters is that all people rise up and demand an end to nuclear weapons.

ThrowawayR2 9mo ago
The nuclear arms re-proliferation that comes along with a multi-polar world raises the risk of use of nuclear weapons considerably. Even in traditionally anti-nuclear Japan, some politicians are broaching the idea of acquiring nuclear arms. That very much makes a difference.
epolanski 9mo ago
To be honest the world is likely safer because of the nuclear deterrent. If Pakistan and India both didn't have nuclear weapons you can rest assured they would've long fought an endless stream of wars with tens and tens of millions. They hate each other.

weregiraffe 9mo ago

>Some people wanted a multi-polar world Specifically, the people who are not part of the American mono-pole.

cco 9mo ago
Oh? By and large the move to a multi-polar world so far and to be driven by the US.

wvoch235 9mo ago

going to need to spend a lot more money than currently to support that...

wnissen 9mo ago

Perhaps we didn't realize how much stability the "two powers" model generated. It caused inevitable arms races as the two powers vied to stay competitive, but there were only two. And the USSR was able to de-escalate on its own. If you have three powers, each of them wants the ability to eliminate not one, but both of the others. Could lead to not just incremental, but polynomial expansion of forces. And de-escalation involves multiple parties coordinating, not just one great power.